The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-07-09
INSURANCE TROUBLES.
ARLINGTON AND CITIZENS CON.
PANlES IN CHANCERY.
A Salty Injunction Bill Filed by Orig.
inal lncOrpOrators and Serious
Charges Made.

Quite an interesting and sensational
injunction bill was filed in the Chan.
Gerry Court yesterday. The complain.
ants are Aston Boyd, Irby Boyd, W.
II. Berry, ]. H. Malone, D. F. Good.
year, Louis Lsgrill, Geo. Hook, E. o.
Watson, NJ. h. Reilly, VIM. Dean, J.
J. Duffy, Mary B. Hidden and David
p. Hadden. The defendants are Thos.
B. Sims, W. II, Kennedy, the Airing
ton Insurance Company, the Citizens
Insurance Company, John Armistesd,
George Arnold, ]. W. Richardson, w.
p. Dunavsnt, d. Csnale, Otto Schwill,
Andrew Renkert, l.. Lswhorn, John
A. Denis and j. NJ. Hill.
The comPlainsnts show that the
fret seven mentioned were among the
fifteen original incorporators OF the
Arlington Insurance Company, which
was organized in August, 1883. The
Ci liens Insurance Company was Or
gan zed in June, 1885, and the defend.
ants, Sims, Arnold, Richardson, Duna-
want, directors in the Arlington Com.
pany, and two others were the incor-
porstors. The capital stock Of both
companies was 100000.
The amount OF stock In the Airing
ion owned by the complainants Is re-
cited.
The bill goes on to state that two OF
the number, Aston Boyd and j. II.
Malone, had q lease on the office No.
43 Madison street for five years. The
company plospered and paid divi-
dends till Sims and Kennedy, parti-
cularly, and others OF the defendants
conceived the idea OF organizing the
Citizens Company and OF having
themselves elected directors ard fiji
GERS and Of quartering the new concern
in the Arlington company. Thus a
share OF the established business OF
the Arlington company went to the
Cilzsns. The defendant and nearly
all the directors owned more stock in
the last concern than in the first.
The charter Of the Arlington was
seized upon, and the exact words are
used in the Citzsns' grant. The de.
PENDANT Sims was elec ed president oil
the new company, he being also the
svowed president Of the Arlington
Kennedy, secretary OF the Arlington
was choeen for the same position In
the Citizens, and George Arnold, q
director in the old concern, was giver
the place Of vice president Of the new
II is charged that the Eve defend
ants mentioned proved untrue to tn,
trusts imposed In them, as officers o
the Arl ngton company, by devotini
time and woI K to the Citizens compa
ny for email cost, the other company
paying them their salaries and quar-
tering their new company on the Ar
lington and in various other ways.
This all operated TO the disadvani
age Of the Arlington and TO the I'D
vantage OF the Ctizsns' company
For instead Of paying 335 per month
office rent they would have had TO pa!
500 for fuch an one "a that occupied
instead OF paying its secretary 5000 pc
snnum II would have been compelle,
TO pay out $500; instead OF stepping
into good business 1t would have hs,
TO grow by toll and industry In build
ing up q trade.
Not only, says the bill, have tn
citizsrs, like that ungrsteiul bird tn
cuckoo, appropriated the nest OF tn
Arlington, but blasted it's hopes for th
future. la view Of ali the facts In tn
case the compliments ask that prope
, process istue; that the defendants b
cTjoined from doing business Ia tn
tfiise ofthe Arlington company; this
the officers OF the Citizens compan
be enjoined IRON scting as officers 9
, the Arlington, and be compelled
pay back all salaries they receive
from the Citizens; that judgment b
. rendered against the defendants for tn
loss which has occurred TO the con
, plainsnts.